Modeling perceptions of climatic risk in crop production

Reinmuth, Evelyn; Parker, Phillip S.; Aurbacher, Joachim; Högy, Petra; Dabbert, Stephan

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0181954

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such an approach is based on the large body of research done in modeling of farming systems and decision support systems (e.g., to understand climatic influence on crop farming). [ 163 , 164 , 165 ] This suggestion does, however, not come without its challenges.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecosystem Services at the Farm Level—Overview, Synergies, Trade‐Offs, and Stakeholder Analysis

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past decade, research has intensified on how to evaluate and manage these ES to minimize environmental impacts of business and everyday life. [8] Concepts such as civic ecology, [9] sustainable development, [10][11][12] and the bioeconomy [13,14] are being rapidly operationalized and often integrate ecological practices into their implementation strategies, by way of how we interact with nature. In this regard, philosopher and scientist Aldo Leopold wrote in the mid-20th century: "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." [15] Similarly, the paradigm of civic ecology [9] is founded in subjective philosophy, which aims to expand our awareness of the natural world and the systems in place.One of the fundamental practices in civic ecology is systems thinking, with the idea that individuals should form a relation to nature, like they do to a human community. Further, systems thinking is frequently used in science to understand how individuals interact with the system. For instance, an ecosystem shares this attribute, where a dynamically evolving system is influenced by interacting, individual elements including air, water, soil, microbes, plants, and animals. Unfortunately, this notion is often ignored, because the provisioning The current geological epoch is characterized by anthropogenic activity that greatly impacts on natural ecosystems and their integrity. The complex networks of ecosystem services (ESs) are often ignored because the provision of natural resources, such as food and industrial crops, is mistakenly viewed as an independent process separate from ecosystems and ignoring the impacts on ecosystems. Recently, research has intensified on how to evaluate and manage ES to minimize environmental impacts, but it remains unclear how to balance anthropogenic activity and ecosystem integrity. This paper reviews the main ESs at farm level including provisioning, regulating, habitat, and cultural services. For these ESs, synergies are outlined and evaluated along with the respective practices (e.g., cover-and intercropping) and ES suppliers (e.g., pollinators and biocontrol agents). Further, several farm-level ES trade-offs are discussed along with a proposal for their evaluation. Finally, a framework for stakeholder approaches specific to farm-level ES is put forward, along with an outlook on how existing precision agriculture technologies can be adapted for improved assessment of ES bundles. This is believed to provide a useful framework for both decision makers and stakeholders to facilitate the development of more sustainable and resilient farming systems.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecosystem Services at the Farm Level—Overview, Synergies, Trade‐Offs, and Stakeholder Analysis

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…whole-farm planning approach); farmer learning (i.e. technology adoption, risk-management strategies, and spatial interaction;) farmer interaction; spatial explicitness (e.g., soil erosion in sloping landscapes); environmental feedback, where socioeconomic and biophysical processes are captured; dynamic analysis, where land-use change and related landscape functions and agro-ecosystem services can be projected; empirical data, where connection to existing databases and model repositories is assured [30]. In turn, Jones [31] proposes importance of next generation agricultural system models taking into consideration: (i) technological advances; (ii) open, harmonized data (i.e.…”

Section: Fig 3 Availability Of National Adaptation Strategy (Nas) Imentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate change adaptation policy: issues in Latvia

Melece

Shena

2019

Engineering for Rural Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nowadays the tackling climate change is the greatest sustainability and environmental challenge for the world. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as the political forum, particularly the Paris meeting held in 2015, agreed the international actions on climate change. Climate change has already become significant in Europe, with the mean temperature increasing, and extreme weather events becoming more frequent. Europe (i.e. Latvia) is warming faster than many other parts of the world. The importance of adaptation in climate policy is now widely recognized. The transformation in policy has accelerated, especially since the European Climate Change Adaptation Strategy was adopted in April 2013. The main objective of the European Union (EU) Climate Change Adaptation Strategy is to promote adaptation in key vulnerable sectors (e.g., agriculture, fishery etc.). In the light of these climate impacts and vulnerabilities, adaptation measures need to be taken at the level of the EU as well as at national, regional and local levels. On the EU level it is stressed that integration of both climates concerns mitigation and adaptation into other development strategies and policies, as well as cross-sectoral planning instruments, is the most effective way tackling climate change. The principal materials used for the research are as follows: different sources of literature, legislative and programming documents (i.e. guidelines) of international (i.e. UN, OECD) and EU institutions, as well as Latvia's documents. Findings show that the climate change adaptation policies are being adopted by most of the EU countries, but several of them, including Latvia, have lagged for others. Moreover, the development and implementation of an integrated approach could require close collaboration among different stakeholders, for example, governmental institutions, municipalities, non-governmental institutions, the private sector and society.

show abstract

“…To increase resilience on agriculture sector, the impact of climate change on agriculture vulnerability level is urgently to be accounted (Mallari, 2016). Also, the production risks related to adaptation action, which is suitable for policymakers, needs for estimation (Reinmuth et al, 2017). To improve resilience of agriculture sector to climate related disaster, information on current and future vulnerability, risks, and opportunities is required for better planning and management of agriculture sector in the future (Cains and Henshel, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinant Factor of Food Farming Vulnerability in Banten Province To Support Climate Change Adaptation

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Food crop is one of the most impacted agricultural sectors by climate related disaster. The negative impacts of climate related disaster could be assessed by its vulnerability level that depends on various indicators including exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. This paper aims to identify the determinant factors that influence the vulnerability of food farming based on the characteristics of land resources, climate and water, and socio-economic factors at the district level in Banten Province, and to develop recommendations on climate adaptation. Identification of the dominant factors, which most contribute to the level of vulnerability, is one of the main considerations to determine the strategy of adaptation. Our results showed that the main determinant factors varied among districts. The most important factors were Oldeman’s climate type (SEI12), the ratio of the number of extension agents to rice field area (ACI3), and the ratio of the number of farmer groups to rice field area (ACI4). SEI12 deals with the climate, whereas ACI3 and ACI4 are related human resources and institutions. Further, although urban area had high exposure and sensitivity as in rural area, but the adaptive capacity for the urban area was still high. Therefore, the level of vulnerability was reduced in urban, but still high in rural area. More efforts are expected to adapt climate related disaster in rural area.

show abstract

Modeling perceptions of climatic risk in crop production

Cited by 5 publications

References 49 publications

Ecosystem Services at the Farm Level—Overview, Synergies, Trade‐Offs, and Stakeholder Analysis

Ecosystem Services at the Farm Level—Overview, Synergies, Trade‐Offs, and Stakeholder Analysis

Climate change adaptation policy: issues in Latvia

Determinant Factor of Food Farming Vulnerability in Banten Province To Support Climate Change Adaptation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About